maxjhandsome
/
llvm-project
forked from OSchip/llvm-project
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Releases Wiki Activity
llvm-project/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopStrengthReduce/funclet.ll

246 lines
7.4 KiB
LLVM
Raw Normal View History

[ScalarEvolutionExpander] Properly insert no-op casts + EH Pads We want to insert no-op casts as close as possible to the def. This is tricky when the cast is of a PHI node and the BasicBlocks between the def and the use cannot hold any instructions. Iteratively walk EH pads until we hit a non-EH pad. This fixes PR25326. llvm-svn: 251393
2015-10-27 15:36:42 +08:00
; RUN: opt < %s -loop-reduce -S | FileCheck %s
target datalayout = "e-m:x-p:32:32-i64:64-f80:32-n8:16:32-a:0:32-S32"
target triple = "i686-pc-windows-msvc"
declare i32 @_except_handler3(...)
[LoopStrengthReduce] Don't bother fixing up PHIs from EH Pad preds We cannot really insert fixup code into a PHI's predecessor. This fixes PR25445. llvm-svn: 252416
2015-11-08 13:04:07 +08:00
declare i32 @__CxxFrameHandler3(...)
[ScalarEvolutionExpander] Properly insert no-op casts + EH Pads We want to insert no-op casts as close as possible to the def. This is tricky when the cast is of a PHI node and the BasicBlocks between the def and the use cannot hold any instructions. Iteratively walk EH pads until we hit a non-EH pad. This fixes PR25326. llvm-svn: 251393
2015-10-27 15:36:42 +08:00
[LoopStrengthReduce] Don't bother fixing up PHIs from EH Pad preds We cannot really insert fixup code into a PHI's predecessor. This fixes PR25445. llvm-svn: 252416
2015-11-08 13:04:07 +08:00
declare void @external(i32*)
[ScalarEvolutionExpander] Properly insert no-op casts + EH Pads We want to insert no-op casts as close as possible to the def. This is tricky when the cast is of a PHI node and the BasicBlocks between the def and the use cannot hold any instructions. Iteratively walk EH pads until we hit a non-EH pad. This fixes PR25326. llvm-svn: 251393
2015-10-27 15:36:42 +08:00
declare void @reserve()
define void @f() personality i32 (...)* @_except_handler3 {
entry:
br label %throw
throw: ; preds = %throw, %entry
%tmp96 = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* undef, i32 1
invoke void @reserve()
to label %throw unwind label %pad
pad: ; preds = %throw
%phi2 = phi i8* [ %tmp96, %throw ]
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
%cs = catchswitch within none [label %unreachable] unwind label %blah2
[ScalarEvolutionExpander] Properly insert no-op casts + EH Pads We want to insert no-op casts as close as possible to the def. This is tricky when the cast is of a PHI node and the BasicBlocks between the def and the use cannot hold any instructions. Iteratively walk EH pads until we hit a non-EH pad. This fixes PR25326. llvm-svn: 251393
2015-10-27 15:36:42 +08:00
unreachable:
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
catchpad within %cs []
[ScalarEvolutionExpander] Properly insert no-op casts + EH Pads We want to insert no-op casts as close as possible to the def. This is tricky when the cast is of a PHI node and the BasicBlocks between the def and the use cannot hold any instructions. Iteratively walk EH pads until we hit a non-EH pad. This fixes PR25326. llvm-svn: 251393
2015-10-27 15:36:42 +08:00
unreachable
blah2:
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
%cleanuppadi4.i.i.i = cleanuppad within none []
[ScalarEvolutionExpander] Properly insert no-op casts + EH Pads We want to insert no-op casts as close as possible to the def. This is tricky when the cast is of a PHI node and the BasicBlocks between the def and the use cannot hold any instructions. Iteratively walk EH pads until we hit a non-EH pad. This fixes PR25326. llvm-svn: 251393
2015-10-27 15:36:42 +08:00
br label %loop_body
loop_body: ; preds = %iter, %pad
%tmp99 = phi i8* [ %tmp101, %iter ], [ %phi2, %blah2 ]
%tmp100 = icmp eq i8* %tmp99, undef
br i1 %tmp100, label %unwind_out, label %iter
iter: ; preds = %loop_body
%tmp101 = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* %tmp99, i32 1
br i1 undef, label %unwind_out, label %loop_body
unwind_out: ; preds = %iter, %loop_body
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
cleanupret from %cleanuppadi4.i.i.i unwind to caller
[ScalarEvolutionExpander] Properly insert no-op casts + EH Pads We want to insert no-op casts as close as possible to the def. This is tricky when the cast is of a PHI node and the BasicBlocks between the def and the use cannot hold any instructions. Iteratively walk EH pads until we hit a non-EH pad. This fixes PR25326. llvm-svn: 251393
2015-10-27 15:36:42 +08:00
}
; CHECK-LABEL: define void @f(
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
; CHECK: cleanuppad within none []
[ScalarEvolutionExpander] Properly insert no-op casts + EH Pads We want to insert no-op casts as close as possible to the def. This is tricky when the cast is of a PHI node and the BasicBlocks between the def and the use cannot hold any instructions. Iteratively walk EH pads until we hit a non-EH pad. This fixes PR25326. llvm-svn: 251393
2015-10-27 15:36:42 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: ptrtoint i8* %phi2 to i32
define void @g() personality i32 (...)* @_except_handler3 {
entry:
br label %throw
throw: ; preds = %throw, %entry
%tmp96 = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* undef, i32 1
invoke void @reserve()
to label %throw unwind label %pad
pad:
%phi2 = phi i8* [ %tmp96, %throw ]
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
%cs = catchswitch within none [label %unreachable, label %blah] unwind to caller
[ScalarEvolutionExpander] Properly insert no-op casts + EH Pads We want to insert no-op casts as close as possible to the def. This is tricky when the cast is of a PHI node and the BasicBlocks between the def and the use cannot hold any instructions. Iteratively walk EH pads until we hit a non-EH pad. This fixes PR25326. llvm-svn: 251393
2015-10-27 15:36:42 +08:00
unreachable:
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
catchpad within %cs []
[ScalarEvolutionExpander] Properly insert no-op casts + EH Pads We want to insert no-op casts as close as possible to the def. This is tricky when the cast is of a PHI node and the BasicBlocks between the def and the use cannot hold any instructions. Iteratively walk EH pads until we hit a non-EH pad. This fixes PR25326. llvm-svn: 251393
2015-10-27 15:36:42 +08:00
unreachable
blah:
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
%catchpad = catchpad within %cs []
br label %loop_body
[ScalarEvolutionExpander] Properly insert no-op casts + EH Pads We want to insert no-op casts as close as possible to the def. This is tricky when the cast is of a PHI node and the BasicBlocks between the def and the use cannot hold any instructions. Iteratively walk EH pads until we hit a non-EH pad. This fixes PR25326. llvm-svn: 251393
2015-10-27 15:36:42 +08:00
unwind_out:
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
catchret from %catchpad to label %leave
[ScalarEvolutionExpander] Properly insert no-op casts + EH Pads We want to insert no-op casts as close as possible to the def. This is tricky when the cast is of a PHI node and the BasicBlocks between the def and the use cannot hold any instructions. Iteratively walk EH pads until we hit a non-EH pad. This fixes PR25326. llvm-svn: 251393
2015-10-27 15:36:42 +08:00
leave:
ret void
loop_body: ; preds = %iter, %pad
%tmp99 = phi i8* [ %tmp101, %iter ], [ %phi2, %blah ]
%tmp100 = icmp eq i8* %tmp99, undef
br i1 %tmp100, label %unwind_out, label %iter
iter: ; preds = %loop_body
%tmp101 = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* %tmp99, i32 1
br i1 undef, label %unwind_out, label %loop_body
}
; CHECK-LABEL: define void @g(
; CHECK: blah:
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: catchpad within %cs []
[ScalarEvolutionExpander] Properly insert no-op casts + EH Pads We want to insert no-op casts as close as possible to the def. This is tricky when the cast is of a PHI node and the BasicBlocks between the def and the use cannot hold any instructions. Iteratively walk EH pads until we hit a non-EH pad. This fixes PR25326. llvm-svn: 251393
2015-10-27 15:36:42 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: ptrtoint i8* %phi2 to i32
define void @h() personality i32 (...)* @_except_handler3 {
entry:
br label %throw
throw: ; preds = %throw, %entry
%tmp96 = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* undef, i32 1
invoke void @reserve()
to label %throw unwind label %pad
pad:
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
%cs = catchswitch within none [label %unreachable, label %blug] unwind to caller
[ScalarEvolutionExpander] Properly insert no-op casts + EH Pads We want to insert no-op casts as close as possible to the def. This is tricky when the cast is of a PHI node and the BasicBlocks between the def and the use cannot hold any instructions. Iteratively walk EH pads until we hit a non-EH pad. This fixes PR25326. llvm-svn: 251393
2015-10-27 15:36:42 +08:00
unreachable:
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
catchpad within %cs []
[ScalarEvolutionExpander] Properly insert no-op casts + EH Pads We want to insert no-op casts as close as possible to the def. This is tricky when the cast is of a PHI node and the BasicBlocks between the def and the use cannot hold any instructions. Iteratively walk EH pads until we hit a non-EH pad. This fixes PR25326. llvm-svn: 251393
2015-10-27 15:36:42 +08:00
unreachable
blug:
%phi2 = phi i8* [ %tmp96, %pad ]
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
%catchpad = catchpad within %cs []
[ScalarEvolutionExpander] Properly insert no-op casts + EH Pads We want to insert no-op casts as close as possible to the def. This is tricky when the cast is of a PHI node and the BasicBlocks between the def and the use cannot hold any instructions. Iteratively walk EH pads until we hit a non-EH pad. This fixes PR25326. llvm-svn: 251393
2015-10-27 15:36:42 +08:00
br label %loop_body
unwind_out:
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
catchret from %catchpad to label %leave
[ScalarEvolutionExpander] Properly insert no-op casts + EH Pads We want to insert no-op casts as close as possible to the def. This is tricky when the cast is of a PHI node and the BasicBlocks between the def and the use cannot hold any instructions. Iteratively walk EH pads until we hit a non-EH pad. This fixes PR25326. llvm-svn: 251393
2015-10-27 15:36:42 +08:00
leave:
ret void
loop_body: ; preds = %iter, %pad
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
%tmp99 = phi i8* [ %tmp101, %iter ], [ %phi2, %blug ]
[ScalarEvolutionExpander] Properly insert no-op casts + EH Pads We want to insert no-op casts as close as possible to the def. This is tricky when the cast is of a PHI node and the BasicBlocks between the def and the use cannot hold any instructions. Iteratively walk EH pads until we hit a non-EH pad. This fixes PR25326. llvm-svn: 251393
2015-10-27 15:36:42 +08:00
%tmp100 = icmp eq i8* %tmp99, undef
br i1 %tmp100, label %unwind_out, label %iter
iter: ; preds = %loop_body
%tmp101 = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* %tmp99, i32 1
br i1 undef, label %unwind_out, label %loop_body
}
; CHECK-LABEL: define void @h(
; CHECK: blug:
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
; CHECK: catchpad within %cs []
[ScalarEvolutionExpander] Properly insert no-op casts + EH Pads We want to insert no-op casts as close as possible to the def. This is tricky when the cast is of a PHI node and the BasicBlocks between the def and the use cannot hold any instructions. Iteratively walk EH pads until we hit a non-EH pad. This fixes PR25326. llvm-svn: 251393
2015-10-27 15:36:42 +08:00
; CHECK-NEXT: ptrtoint i8* %phi2 to i32
[ScalarEvolutionExpander] PHI on a catchpad can be used on both edges A PHI on a catchpad might be used by both edges out of the catchpad, feeding back into a loop. In this case, just use the insertion point. Anything more clever would require new basic blocks or PHI placement. llvm-svn: 251442
2015-10-28 03:48:28 +08:00
define void @i() personality i32 (...)* @_except_handler3 {
entry:
br label %throw
throw: ; preds = %throw, %entry
%tmp96 = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* undef, i32 1
invoke void @reserve()
to label %throw unwind label %catchpad
catchpad: ; preds = %throw
%phi2 = phi i8* [ %tmp96, %throw ]
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
%cs = catchswitch within none [label %cp_body] unwind label %cleanuppad
[ScalarEvolutionExpander] PHI on a catchpad can be used on both edges A PHI on a catchpad might be used by both edges out of the catchpad, feeding back into a loop. In this case, just use the insertion point. Anything more clever would require new basic blocks or PHI placement. llvm-svn: 251442
2015-10-28 03:48:28 +08:00
cp_body:
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
catchpad within %cs []
[ScalarEvolutionExpander] PHI on a catchpad can be used on both edges A PHI on a catchpad might be used by both edges out of the catchpad, feeding back into a loop. In this case, just use the insertion point. Anything more clever would require new basic blocks or PHI placement. llvm-svn: 251442
2015-10-28 03:48:28 +08:00
br label %loop_head
cleanuppad:
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
cleanuppad within none []
[ScalarEvolutionExpander] PHI on a catchpad can be used on both edges A PHI on a catchpad might be used by both edges out of the catchpad, feeding back into a loop. In this case, just use the insertion point. Anything more clever would require new basic blocks or PHI placement. llvm-svn: 251442
2015-10-28 03:48:28 +08:00
br label %loop_head
loop_head:
br label %loop_body
loop_body: ; preds = %iter, %catchpad
%tmp99 = phi i8* [ %tmp101, %iter ], [ %phi2, %loop_head ]
%tmp100 = icmp eq i8* %tmp99, undef
br i1 %tmp100, label %unwind_out, label %iter
iter: ; preds = %loop_body
%tmp101 = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* %tmp99, i32 1
br i1 undef, label %unwind_out, label %loop_body
unwind_out: ; preds = %iter, %loop_body
unreachable
}
; CHECK-LABEL: define void @i(
; CHECK: ptrtoint i8* %phi2 to i32
[LoopStrengthReduce] Don't bother fixing up PHIs from EH Pad preds We cannot really insert fixup code into a PHI's predecessor. This fixes PR25445. llvm-svn: 252416
2015-11-08 13:04:07 +08:00
define void @test1(i32* %b, i32* %c) personality i32 (...)* @__CxxFrameHandler3 {
entry:
br label %for.cond
for.cond: ; preds = %for.inc, %entry
%d.0 = phi i32* [ %b, %entry ], [ %incdec.ptr, %for.inc ]
invoke void @external(i32* %d.0)
to label %for.inc unwind label %catch.dispatch
for.inc: ; preds = %for.cond
%incdec.ptr = getelementptr inbounds i32, i32* %d.0, i32 1
br label %for.cond
catch.dispatch: ; preds = %for.cond
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
%cs = catchswitch within none [label %catch] unwind label %catch.dispatch.2
[LoopStrengthReduce] Don't bother fixing up PHIs from EH Pad preds We cannot really insert fixup code into a PHI's predecessor. This fixes PR25445. llvm-svn: 252416
2015-11-08 13:04:07 +08:00
catch: ; preds = %catch.dispatch
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
%0 = catchpad within %cs [i8* null, i32 64, i8* null]
catchret from %0 to label %try.cont
[LoopStrengthReduce] Don't bother fixing up PHIs from EH Pad preds We cannot really insert fixup code into a PHI's predecessor. This fixes PR25445. llvm-svn: 252416
2015-11-08 13:04:07 +08:00
try.cont: ; preds = %catch
invoke void @external(i32* %c)
to label %try.cont.7 unwind label %catch.dispatch.2
catch.dispatch.2: ; preds = %try.cont, %catchendblock
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
%e.0 = phi i32* [ %c, %try.cont ], [ %b, %catch.dispatch ]
%cs2 = catchswitch within none [label %catch.4] unwind to caller
[LoopStrengthReduce] Don't bother fixing up PHIs from EH Pad preds We cannot really insert fixup code into a PHI's predecessor. This fixes PR25445. llvm-svn: 252416
2015-11-08 13:04:07 +08:00
catch.4: ; preds = %catch.dispatch.2
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
catchpad within %cs2 [i8* null, i32 64, i8* null]
[LoopStrengthReduce] Don't bother fixing up PHIs from EH Pad preds We cannot really insert fixup code into a PHI's predecessor. This fixes PR25445. llvm-svn: 252416
2015-11-08 13:04:07 +08:00
unreachable
try.cont.7: ; preds = %try.cont
ret void
}
; CHECK-LABEL: define void @test1(
; CHECK: for.cond:
; CHECK: %d.0 = phi i32* [ %b, %entry ], [ %incdec.ptr, %for.inc ]
; CHECK: catch.dispatch.2:
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
; CHECK: %e.0 = phi i32* [ %c, %try.cont ], [ %b, %catch.dispatch ]
[LoopStrengthReduce] Don't rewrite PHIs with incoming values from CatchSwitches Bail out if we have a PHI on an EHPad that gets a value from a CatchSwitchInst. Because the CatchSwitchInst cannot be split, there is no good place to stick any instructions. This fixes PR26373. llvm-svn: 259702
2016-02-04 05:30:34 +08:00
define i32 @test2() personality i32 (...)* @_except_handler3 {
entry:
br label %for.body
for.body: ; preds = %for.inc, %entry
%phi = phi i32 [ %inc, %for.inc ], [ 0, %entry ]
invoke void @reserve()
to label %for.inc unwind label %catch.dispatch
catch.dispatch: ; preds = %for.body
%tmp18 = catchswitch within none [label %catch.handler] unwind to caller
catch.handler: ; preds = %catch.dispatch
%phi.lcssa = phi i32 [ %phi, %catch.dispatch ]
%tmp19 = catchpad within %tmp18 [i8* null]
catchret from %tmp19 to label %done
done:
ret i32 %phi.lcssa
for.inc: ; preds = %for.body
%inc = add i32 %phi, 1
br label %for.body
}
; CHECK-LABEL: define i32 @test2(
; CHECK: %phi.lcssa = phi i32 [ %phi, %catch.dispatch ]
; CHECK-NEXT: catchpad within